From 1873 to 1878, the American physicist Josiah Willard Gibbs offered to the scientific community three great articles that proved to be a milestone for the science of thermodynamics. On the other hand, between 1886 and 1896, the French physicist Pierre Maurice Marie Duhem translated thermodynamics into the language of Lagrange’s analytical mechanics. At the same time, he expanded its scope to include thermal phenomena, electromagnetic phenomena, and all kinds of irreversible processes. Duhem formulated a version of thermodynamics characterized by (...) the conceptual unification of mechanics, physics, and chemistry. Overall, the work of both physicists on thermodynamics is tremendous, full of axioms, theorems, corollaries, proofs, and hundreds of equations. Therefore, it would be a utopian aim to provide a short analysis of their work. Instead, the present study will attempt to give a brief outline of the main tools and concepts used by the two physicists. I will argue that each scientist approaches thermodynamics in a new and unique way, which reveals their scientific styles as reflected in their personalities, the writing styles, their behavior toward publicity, and their inclination for publication. Finally, I will examine the influence of their theories on the development of chemical thermodynamics. (shrink)

Although Pierre Duhem is well known for his conventionalist outlook and, in particular, for his critique of crucial experiments outlined in his thesis on the empirical indeterminacy of theory, he also contributed to the scholarship on the psychological profiles of scientists by revising Pascal’s famous distinction between the subtle mind and the geometric mind. For Duhem, the ideal scientist is the one who combines the defining qualities of both types of intellect. As a physicist, Duhem made important theoretical contributions to (...) the field of thermodynamics as well as to the then-nascent physical chemistry. Due to his rejection of atomism and his unrelenting critique of Maxwell’s electrodynamics, however, in his later years, Duhem’s work was surpassed and abandoned by the dominant tendencies of physics of the time. In this essay, I will discuss whether Duhem himself can be understood through the lens of his own account of the scientist’s psychological profile. More specifically, I examine whether the subtle mind – to which he seems to assign greater cognitive value – in fact plays a key role in Duhem’s critique of the English School, or if his preference for the axiomatic structure of theoretical physics shows a greater affinity with the geometric mind. (shrink)

Review of Stefano Bordoni, Taming Complexity: Duhem’s Third Pathway to Thermodynamcis, Editrice Montefeltro, Urbino, 2012.